Another Update: the discussion has carried over to Panda's Thumb, including this interesting comment by Mr. Mullenix.
I was intrigued by a recent Dembski column linked to idthefuture, so I read it. It concerns "quote-mining," and is a defense against the charge that Dembski engages in it. I decided I'd throw in my two farthings, registered properly, and commented. I said this:
“Pretty convincing indicator that the Cambrian explosion poses a challenge to conventional evolutionary theory, wouldn’t you say?”
The answer is clearly “no,” as Josh Rosenau has demonstrated elsewhere.
If I were to say, “Bill Dembski appears to be a man of principle. He treats his readers and critics fairly, even charitably–until you dig deeper and read what they’re actually saying. Then the facade crumbles.”
And you were to quote me as saying, “Bill Dembski appears to be a man of principle. He treats his readers and critics fairly, even charitably….” That would be context-ripping.
Explain how this is any different from what you have done.*
My comment was deleted, and my login erased.
Deleting comments without good reason (and without explanation) is pernicious, and is exactly why I will now refer to Mr. Dembski as "intellectually dishonest." He cannot waffle or weave, so he gags his opponents. (He apparently has done the exact same thing to Mr. Rosenau.)
If you stifle fair debate, Mr. Dembski, how dare you complain about censorship?
*There is no defense for this. Even if Ward is wrong (as another commenter seems to believe), there is no excuse for unfairly ripping Ward's quote from its context. Show where Ward is wrong, but do not mischaracterize Ward's own words.
Update: Another commenter writes, "My comments and IP address were censored at Panda’s Thumb without good reason (and without explanation). If the “premier” pro-neo-Darwinism site is unwilling to allow dissenting viewpoints, why should this site either?" A red herring served up tu quoque with a dash of zesty quote marks. Zing!